AECTHandbook_Chapter53_UCD_final[1]

User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick 53 USER-CENTERED DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Eun-Ok Baek, California State University San Bernardino, ebaek@csusb.edu Kursat Cagiltay, Middle East Technical University, Turkey, kursat@metu.edu.tr Elizabeth Boling, Indiana University, eboling@indiana.edu Theodore Frick, Indiana University, frick@indiana.edu ABSTRACT This chapter surveys methods, techniques, practices, and challenging issues in UserCentered Design and Development (UCDD) The traditional ISD approach has been Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick criticized for its bureaucratic and linear nature and its slow process Two alternatives to that approach are discussed here: rapid prototyping and participatory design These have been put forth as alternative models that address the many limitations of the conventional ISD model Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Keywords with definitions: User-centered design: A design philosophy and approach that places users at the center of the design process from the stages of planning and designing the system requirements to implementing and testing the product Participatory design: A user-centered design approach in which users are actively involved in the design process of a system or product that addresses their specific needs Rapid prototyping: A user-centered design approach in which users participate in a rapid, iterative series of tryout and revision cycles during the design of a system or a product until an acceptable version is created Usability: Usability refers to the ease with which humans can use a system or a product to accomplish their goals efficiently, effectively, and with satisfaction Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick 53.1 INTRODUCTION One of the most frequent and important challenges faced by instructional technologists is how to design and develop a product or program that both supports users’ learning and performance in an effective and efficient manner, and also generates user satisfaction Recently, new approaches on the processes used in instructional design have been proposed and explored Many researchers have pointed out that the traditional instructional systems design (ISD) approach is reductionist in nature, and that it tends to solve a problem by fragmentation, one stage at a time (Finegan, 1994; Jonassen, 1990; You, 1993) In Gordon and Zemke (2000) and Zemke and Rossett (2002), several researchers and practitioners attacked the traditional ISD approach for its bureaucratic and linear nature, and its slow and clumsy process The adoption of user-centered design and development (UCDD) into ISD is vital in designing systems that better serve users’ needs (Willis & Wright, 2000) If ISD does need to go through a paradigmatic transition, along with changes in the educational and socio-economic environment, then the new paradigm of ISD must reflect these environmental changes This would mean that the ISD process should become more user-centered, more cost and time effective and more performance-focused Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick The concept of UCDD is to place users at the center of the design process from the stages of planning and designing the system requirements to implementing and testing the product UCDD appears in many different forms within design approaches In this chapter we have chosen a philosophical approach to object and systems design – participatory design, and a particular process – rapid prototyping in order to elucidate the overall perspective of usercentered design First we will review the big picture for UCDD Then, we will examine the participatory design approach—beginning with its historical background and then focusing on the different participation levels within this approach This will be followed by a description of rapid prototyping and a discussion of its challenges Before concluding, the UCDD approach will be reviewed in light of instructional design paradigms 53.2 THE BIG PICTURE FOR UCDD 53.2.1 Key Elements of UCDD What is UCDD? As Bannon (1991) stated, “what the term user-centered system design means, or how it can be achieved is far from clear” (p 38) To begin sorting the issue out, we observe that there are two types of approaches to design and development: the product-oriented and the process-oriented approaches The product-oriented approach focuses mainly on the creation of a Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick product The utilization of the product can be a fixed and well understood idea; this means that design requirements can be determined in advance The process-oriented approach requires designers to view their entire process of development in the context of human learning, work, and communication (i.e., use) The usage of the product in development takes place in an evolving world of changing needs This involves certain advantages, but also imposes various constraints Because change is the norm in the process, prior specifications for an end-product are not pre-determined completely In UCDD plans are just the beginning of the process, but the main mission is not conforming to the plan; it is responding to changes throughout the life cycle of the project Our focus here will be on process-oriented approaches and specifically on those that fall under the socio-technical umbrella The socio-technical perspective considers not only technical aspects of a system (tools, techniques, procedures) but also social aspects (people, network of roles, relationships and tasks) (Goodrum, Dorsey, & Schwen, 1993; Mumford, 1983) To be able to implement the socio-technical approach in system design, information needs to be extracted from the social context UCDD can be considered a sub-circle of the socio-technical approach UCDD and the socio-technological perspective are guiding philosophies and not specific methods or processes for design The idea is to approach design with Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick knowledge of and the will to utilize social and cognitive analyses of human activities These become the basis of the given project and direct its development Hence, the UCDD approach to design emphases the user’s requirements and strives to keep those in mind Designers are required to initiate early and continuous contact with prospective users to elicit what they need and how they will learn/perform The approach also stresses that user-oriented technology in development must be tested for usability These tests are done iteratively as opposed to using phased-stage or lock-step testing These key elements of UCDD can be summarized as: user participation (mutual learning), contextual inquiry, and iterative design Each element is discussed below 53.2.1.1 User participation “Users” of technology are simply those who make use of the tools that designers create However, this term should be further refined for our present purpose Maguire (2001) and McCracken and Wolfe (2004) differentiated primary users from more broadly defined users Primary users are those who will directly use and interact with the system to tasks, and more broadly defined users are stakeholders – i.e anyone who will be influenced by primary users’ capabilities to carry out their tasks or who affects the system requirements The voices of both primary users and stakeholders need to be respected in the design decision making process Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick User participation is vital in UCDD design, so users should be actively involved in the entire design process—not simply consulted at the beginning and/or at the testing stages of a product Users can contribute important “folk knowledge” derived from their work contexts (Walenstein, p 21) In this regard, designers should understand that users typically know more than what they can initially verbalize If properly questioned, they may provide useful feedback on proposed design ideas (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977) This interactive process also potentially increases the users’ acceptance of the product and/or system under development Designers must take care to respect the users’ various backgrounds and fields of expertise; this a necessary condition for mutual learning (Muller, 2003) The methods included under the UCDD perspective vary as to the timing and amount of user participation they include, from Carr-Chellman’s (2007) insistence on users fully franchised as design peers throughout the process to the sometimes minimal role played by “test subjects” in rote usability testing that occurs too late in the design cycle for changes to be made to a product (Krug, 2005) At the 1994 Participatory Design Conference, Tom Erickson of Apple Computer suggested four dimensions of user participation (Kuhn & Winograd, 1996) These include direct interaction with the designers, long-term involvement in the design process, broad participation in the overall system being designed, and maintaining a significant degree of control over design decisions Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick 53.2.1.2 Contextual analysis Another key element in UCDD is considering the users’ work needs in context From the socio-technical perspective, Goodrum, Dorsey, and Schwen (1993) argue that designers must take into account the dynamics of people, environment, work practices, and technology to develop an enriched learning and information environment Along the same lines, Read, MacFarlane, McManus, Gray, and Patel (2002) suggest various contextual variables that influence users’ participation in design activities These include environment, knowledge, skills, and security They report that: o The cultural and physical environment in which a participatory design activity takes place will affect the activity o Each participant will bring to the design activity his or her own general knowledge, subject knowledge, and technical knowledge o The skills that will affect the ability of individuals to contribute to a participatory design activity include cognitive skills, motor skills, and articulatory skills Different participants will bring different skills to any project, and it is likely that the balance of skills within a group will affect its functionality o Comfort factors, emotional stability, and stress also have an effect on how people contribute to a group activity These factors can be quite individual and are difficult to predict Feelings of security within a Page of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick group will also be influenced by environment, knowledge, and skills (p 60) 53.2.1.3 Iterative design In UCDD, designers are expected to initiate early contact with potential users, and then focus continuously on what these users require of the technology to be designed Testing must be done iteratively, in response to design questions and advances rather than being carried out on the basis of phases in a predetermined design process The iterative process is one of reflection-in-action in which development stages are shaped in context to deal intelligently and creatively with “uncertainty, uniqueness, and value conflict” in a constantly changing world (Schön, 1987, p 6) Iterative design is closely related to the concept of design space, an idea borrowed from the fields of architecture and graphic design Beadouin-Lafon and Mackay (2003) explain design space as follows: Designers are responsible for creating a design space specific to a particular design problem They explore this design space, expanding and contracting it as they add and eliminate ideas The process is iterative: more cyclic than reductionist That is, the designer does not begin with a rough idea and successively add more precise details until the final solution is reached Instead, she Page 10 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick prototype does not need to include everything that the final version will contain Finally, Dorsey, Goodrum, and Schwen (1997) and Sugar and Boling (1995) view a prototype as a tangible idea of possible solutions that have different range of fidelity from low to high Their definition is very different from the others, in that even a conceptual version of a solution could be a prototype, and it is closest to that used in the software design community (Rudd, Stern & Isensee, 1996) 53.5 CHALLENGING ISSUES Designers face many challenging issues when attempting to implement UCDD These include the effective incorporation of user participation in the design process, control issues over resources, and the practical implementation of the approach utilized These issues are discussed below 53.5.1 Issue 1: Effective incorporation of user participation One of the most difficult challenges of UCDD is the effective incorporation of user participation in the design process Determination of which voices will be heard and how the users’ preferences will be reflected in the design is a values-based decision and is rarely easy This is especially true in large-sized commercial projects targeted at a range of users from different backgrounds and settings Along with the issue of who gets to participate comes the issue of how to recruit users that will represent the potential target user groups appropriately when those groups are very large or very diverse In addition, when user participation is Page 26 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick limited only to a certain stage, the users’ role will end up being that of information providers rather than co-designers of the project Even when the goal of UCDD is to place users at the center of the design process, in many situations the negotiation between the “designed for” approach, in which the designers assume leadership in the design process, and the “designed with” approach, in which the users assume ownership in the process can become both a philosophical and a practical consideration How much user participation is too much? Even for designers who consider active user participation throughout the entire process to be the ideal, some researchers have encountered practical difficulties with the process In a participatory design project intended to build a community learning network using open source tools, Luke, Clement, Terada, Bortolussi, Booth, Brooks and Christ (2004) observed that early group brainstorming heightened the users’ expectations and demands, and these demands were furthermore unmoderated by any realistic conceptions of the time and costs they would require When the first prototype was released (past its due date), these same heightened expectations turned into general disappointment The authors attributed this problem to both the designers and the users, who were “too participatory and too open” (p 11) They then warned that user participation in the early stages of a project can be disadvantageous if it is not balanced with realistic constraints While processes can be developed to ameliorate or eliminate these kinds of problems, the potential for them to arise remains Page 27 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick However, some researchers have been able to elicit user participation positively, even in long-term, large-scale PD projects Letondal and Mackay (2004) conducted participatory design activities with research biologists, bioinformaticians, and programmers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris over a period of seven years The focus of their project was the development of tools to support end-user programming They did observe some tensions between different groups of participants; however, overall the participatory design worked in that context The main reason for this success was attributed by the authors to maintaining a balance between “low-responsibility” and “useful results” (p 39) Again, it appears that designs committed to the UCDD perspective need experience and skill in order to carry it out effectively 53.5.2 Issue 2: Control over resources—money, time, tools, and space Another challenging issue in UCDD is acquiring and maintaining control over enough resources to support a project—money, time, tools, and space Acquiring and allocating these resources can cause a great deal of tension Even after full members in the design team have been identified, the question still remains: how can the team elicit full user participation when the users may also have to fulfill their own full-time job duties? In their review of ten different participatory design projects, Clement and Van den Besselaar (1993) observed that while some projects provided funds for the users to hire temporary staff to take their place while they were working with the design team, users in other Page 28 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick projects had to perform their regular job duties while concurrently contributing to the project Design teams seeking only intermittent and short-term involvement from users may face lower barriers, but may still have trouble recruiting users who can afford to take the time necessary to participate in the test of a prototype – or repeating such sessions Sugar (2001) points out that one of the common misconceptions among researchers in UCDD is that designers should relinquish all of their authority and allow the participating users to make all of the design decisions He warns that users are not expert designers and designers should not expect users always to know exactly what they want to use He points out that they may not be right all the time either, and that even though users’ opinions must be respected, designers need to present possibilities and the limitations of proposed solutions properly While this is true for any design project, Sugar claims that the governing responsibility of designers is certainly crucial in UCDD To implement this approach effectively, designers must also delve beyond the surface of these issues and carefully consider each of them by means of in-depth analyses (Sugar, 2001) Carr-Chellman (2007), while offering multiple suggestions for carrying out user design activities in which users function as the primary designers and trained designers as facilitators, also points out that the process can be very difficult and is not suitable for every context or situation Page 29 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Jef Raskin (2000), who played a major role in the design of the Macintosh computer interface at Apple Computer, emphasized that what users prefer in a design is not necessarily what is most efficient and effective He cited several empirical studies where users actually performed more poorly with interface designs they preferred than they did with others they did not prefer This illustrates the tension between what users want compared with what is best for them based on scientifically-proven principles, similar to the problem with what people prefer to eat vs what is good for them in terms of the food’s nutritional value and their long-term health 53.6 DISCUSSION When designers select a design approach, their choice is influenced by their philosophies (Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004) In their attempt to understand how designers carry out instructional design projects in reality, Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (2004) found that all twelve of their examined designers (from six different settings in the initial study) integrated a traditional ISD model into their work The ways in which they incorporated this model, however, were diverse and varied In their second study, Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson developed four alternative design paradigms (or conceptual frameworks) that are anchored in philosophy: instrumental, communicative, Page 30 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick pragmatic, and artistic The following Table shows the characteristics of each of these paradigms Table 53 Four alternative design paradigms Emphasis Designer’s role User’s role Design process Instrumental Paradigm Communicative Pragmatic Paradigm Paradigm Artistic Paradigm Aligned goals, learning situations, process, and outcome of the design o Expert o Responsible for design Communication between designers and users to reach consensus Creative design o Facilitator o Shared responsibility with users o Information o Information provider and provider approval for o Co-designers action o Typically o non-linear and linear is iterative Repeated testing and revision o Expert o Artist o Responsible o Fully for design responsible for design o Information o Product user provider o Product user o non-linear and is iterative (Adapted from Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson, 2004, p 86) o can be linear or nonlinear In general, the UCDD approach seems to be related to communicative and pragmatic paradigms in the sense that UCDD puts an emphasis on users as codevelopers in the design process This is achieved by means of non-linear and iterative analysis-design-evaluation format of cooperation Rapid prototyping, when used as the cornerstone of an alternate ISD model, may be closer in philosophy to the pragmatic paradigm In either case, UCDD in both strong and Page 31 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick weak forms, represent some shift in philosophy for instructional designers who employ it To the extent UCDD gathers momentum in the teaching and practice of instructional design, we can expect to see changes in logistics, methods and power dynamics in design projects within this field REFERENCES Al-Kodmany, K (1999) Combining artistry and technology in participatory community planning Berkeley Planning Journal, 13, 28-36 Appleman, R., Pugh, R C., & Siantz, J E (1995) Increasing the efficacy of informal video through rapid prototyping Paper present at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL Bannon, L (1991) From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in systems design In J Greenbaum, & M Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp 25-44) Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates * Beaudourin-Lafon, M., & Mackay, W (2003) Prototyping tools and techniques In J Jacko & A Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (pp 1006-1031) Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K (1998) Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Page 32 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Bias, R G (1994) The pluralistic usability walkthrough: Coordinated empathies In J Nielsen & R L Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp 63-76) New York: John Wiley & Sons Bodker, S., Ehn, P., Knudsen, J L., Kyng, M., & Madsen, K H (1988) Computer support for cooperative design In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88, Portland, Oregon) Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/bodker88computer.html * Boling, E., & Bichelmeyer, B (1998) Filling the gap: Rapid prototyping as visualization in the ISD process Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St Louis, MO * Boling, E., & Frick, T (1997) Holistic rapid prototyping for Web design: Early Usability testing is essential In B H Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp 319328) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications Carr-Chellman, A A (2007) User design Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates * Carr-Chellman, A A & Savoy, M (2004) User-design research In D.H Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for education, communications and technology (2nd ed., pp 701-716) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Carroll, J M (1995) Introduction: The scenario perspective on system development In J.M Carroll, (Ed.), Scenario-based design: Envisioning work and technology in system development (pp 1-17) New York: John Wiley & Sons Carroll, J M (2000) Making use: Scenario-based design of human-computer interactions Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Page 33 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Carroll, J.M., Chin, G., Rosson, M.B., & Neale, D.C (2000) The development of cooperation: Five years of participatory design in the virtual school In Proceedings on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques pp.239-251 New York: Association for Computing Machinery * Clement, A., & Van den Besselaar, P (1993) A retrospective look at PD projects Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 29-37 Cohen, J (2003) Participatory design with the Internet Architectural Record Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://archecord.construction.com/features/digital/archives/0308da-1.asp Corry, M D., Frick, T., & Hansen, L (1997) User-centered design and usability testing of a web site: An illustrative case study Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (4), 65-76 Davies, R C (2004) Adapting virtual reality for the participatory design of work environments Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 13(1), 1-33, Springer Netherlands Dorsey, L T., Goodrum, D A., & Schwen, T M (1997) Rapid collaborative prototyping as an instructional development paradigm In C.R Dills, & A.J Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp 445-465) Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Educational Technology Publications Druin A (1999) Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children Proceedings of CHI '99 (Pittsburgh PA, May 1999), ACM Press, 529-599 Dumas, J S & Redish, J C (1993) A practical guide to usability testing Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Page 34 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Ehn, P (1988) Playing the language-games of design and use on skill and participation In R.B Allen (Ed.) Proceedings of the ACM SIGOIS and IEEECS TC-OA 1988 conference on Office information systems (pp 142-157) New York, NY: ACM Press Ehn, P (1992) Scandinavian design: On participation and skill In J S Brown, & P Duguid Usability: Turning technologies into tools (pp 96-132) New York, NY: Oxford University Press * Ehn, P (1993) Scandinavian design: On participation and skill In D Schuler & A Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp 41-78) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates * Ehn, P., & Kyng, M (1991) Cardboard computers: Mocking-it-up or hands-on the future In J Greenbaum & M Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp 169-195) Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Finegan, A (1994) Soft systems methodology: An alternative approach to knowledge elicitation in complex and poorly defined systems Complexity International, Vol 1, Paper ID: finega01 [On-line] Available at: http://www.csu.edu.au/ci/vol01/finega01/ Flagg, B N (1990) Formative evaluation for educational technologies Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher Frick, T., Su, B & An, Y J (2005) Building a large, successful website efficiently through inquiry-based design and content management tools TechTrends, 49(4), 2031 See also: http://education.indiana.edu/practical.html Gery, G (1995) Attributes and behavior of performance-centered systems Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(1), 47-93 Page 35 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick * Goodrum, D A., Dorsey, L T., & Schwen, T M (1993) Defining and building an enriched learning and information environment Educational Technology, 33(11), 1020 Gordon, J., & Zemke, R (2000) The attack on ISD Training Magazine, 37 (4), 42-53 * Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M (1991) Introduction: Situated design In J Greenbaum & M Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp 1-24) Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Grudin, J., & Pruitt, J (2002) Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Malmo University, Sweden Gustafson, J L., & Branch, R M (1997) Revisioning model of instructional development Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 73-89 Gustafson, K L., & Reeves, T C., (1990) IDioM: A platform for a course development expert system Educational Technology, 30(3), 19-25 Jonassen, D H (1990) Thinking technology: Chaos in instructional design Educational Technology, 30(2), 32-34 * Jones, M., Li, Z., & Merrill, M (1992) Rapid prototyping in automated instructional design Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 95-100 Jones, T S., & Richey, R C (2000) Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63– 80 Kuhn, S & Winograd, T (1996) Design for people at work In T Winograd (Ed.), Bringing design to software (pp.290-294) New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Page 36 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Krug, S (2005) Don't make me think: A common sense approach to web usability (2nd ed.) Indianapolis, IN: Pearson Education Law, M P., Okey, J R., & Carter, B J (1995) Developing electronic performance support systems for professionals Proceedings of the Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA Letondal, C., & Mackay, W E (2004) Participatory programming and the scope of mutual responsibility: Balancing scientific, design and software commitment In Proceedings of PDC 2004: Participatory Design Conference, Toronto, Canada Luke, R., Clement, A., Terada, R., Bortolussi, D., Booth, C., Brooks, D., & Christ, D (2004) The promise and perils of a participatory approach to developing an open source community learning network In A Clement, F de Cindio, A.M Oostveen, D Schuler & P van den Besselaar (Eds.), Participatory Design Conference 2004 Vol 1: Artful integration: Interweaving media, materials and practices (pp 11-19) New York: The Association for Computing Machinery Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://trout.cpsr.org/conferences/pdc2004/proceedings/vol_1/p11_Luke.pdf Maguire, M (2001) Context of use within usability activities International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 453-483 McCracken, D.D., & Wolfe, R.J (2004) User-centered website development: A humancomputer interaction approach Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K (1992) Instructional transaction shells: Responsibilities, methods, and parameters Educational Technology, 32(2), 526 Page 37 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Moonen, J (1994) Prototyping as a design activity In T Husén & T Neville Postlethwaiste The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.) Oxford: Elsevier Science Mumford E (1983) Designing human systems for new technology: The ETHICS method Manchester, UK: Manchester Business School *Muller, M J (2003) Participatory design: The third space in human-computer interaction In J Jacko & A Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (pp 1051-1068) Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Nisbett, R E & Wilson, T D (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259 Northrup, P T (1995) Concurrent formative evaluation: guidelines and implications for multimedia designers Educational Technology, 35(6), 24–31 Raskin, J (2000) The humane interface: New directions for designing interactive systems Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Rathbun, G A., Saito, R S., & Goodrum, D A (1997) Reconceiving ISD: Three perspectives on rapid prototyping as a paradigm shift Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Albuquerque, NM Read, J., Gregory, P., MacFarlane, S., McManus, B., Gray, P., & Patel, R (2002) An investigation of participatory design with children: Informant, balanced and facilitated design Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children International Workshop (pp 53-64) Shaker Publishing Page 38 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick Reigeluth, C M (1996) A new paradigm of ISD Educational Technology, 36 (3), 13-20 Reigeluth, C M., & Duffy, F M (2007) Trends and issues in P-12 educational change In R.A Reiser & J.V Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp 209-220) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Reigeluth, C M & Frick, T (1999) Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories In Reigeluth, C (Ed), Instructional-design theories and models Vol II (pp 633-652), Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S (1996) Low vs high-fidelity prototyping debate Interactions, 3(1), 76-85 Schön, D (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Simon, H A (1996) The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Sugar, W A (2001) What is a good about user-centered design? Documenting the effect of usability sessions on novice software designers Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 3(3), 235-250 Sugar, W A., & Boling, E (1995) User-centered innovation: A model for early usability testing Paper presented at the Annual National Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, CA: Anaheim Tessmer, M (1994) Formative evaluation alternatives Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 3-18 Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J (1995) Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies, and criticism Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38-54 Page 39 of 40 User-Centered Design and Development Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick * Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B (1990) Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44 * Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K L (2004) Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design Educational Technology Research and Technology, 52(2), 69–89 Walenstein, A (2002) Cognitive support in software engineering tools: A distributed cognition framework Unpublished doctoral dissertation Simon Fraser University, Canada * Willis, J., & Wright, K E (2000) A general set of procedures for constructivist instructional design: The new r2d2 model Educational Technology, 40(2), 5-20 Witt, C L., & Wager, W (1994) A Comparison of Instructional Systems Design and Electronic Performance Support Systems Design Educational Technology, 34(6), 2024 You, Y (1993) What can we learn from Chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design Educational Technology Research and Technology, 41 (3), 17-32 Zemke, R & Rossett, A (2002) A Hard Look at ISD Training Magazine, 39(2), 26-35 Page 40 of 40